Santa Anita Cuts Stakes Purses for Upcoming Meet

[Al Gobbi]

Although the application for Santa Anita Park's upcoming meet that begins Dec. 26 has yet to be approved by the California Horse Racing Board, executives from The Stronach Group said Dec. 14 that stakes purses for the Arcadia, Calif., track will decrease $600,000 for the meeting that runs through early July.

Tim Ritvo, chief operating officer of The Stronach Group, said the purse cuts were made to stakes to ensure purses for other levels of racing remained steady.

The most glaring reduction on the calendar is the Santa Anita Handicap (G1), which will drop to $600,000 from $750,000 in 2017 and $1 million in 2016. It will be the lowest purse for the Big 'Cap since 1985, when it was $450,000.


https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/225189/santa-anita-cuts-stakes-purses-for-upcoming-meet

[cj]

They need to raise the takeout some more. That will drive purses up.

[JustRalph]

Raise the admission !

[BrentT]

Actually nothing wrong with this. As long as the money is distributed thru all the other maiden, claiming and allowance races it helps all involved at the track. The G1s, 2s, 3s are mainly won by the big barns anyhow they make plenty, in order to keep the whole train running you got to feed the smaller outfits as well.....

Look no further than delta downs right now at this meet, they cut out all the big stakes purses for them Derby points events etc, and everyone there is reaping the benefits. The purses are almost on par with FG a few hours down the road, and much easier competition.

[cj]

Actually nothing wrong with this. As long as the money is distributed thru all the other maiden, claiming and allowance races it helps all involved at the track. The G1s, 2s, 3s are mainly won by the big barns anyhow they make plenty, in order to keep the whole train running you got to feed the smaller outfits as well.....

Look no further than delta downs right now at this meet, they cut out all the big stakes purses for them Derby points events etc, and everyone there is reaping the benefits. The purses are almost on par with FG a few hours down the road, and much easier competition.

It is the fair thing to do, but my point was they put themselves in this bind by raising takeout...you know the takeout raise that was going to raise purses and be GREAT for owners.

[zico20]

To play devils advocate, if tracks keep dropping purses for big races there will be less incentive to continue racing the top horses and instead retire them earlier than they should. Not that they aren't doing it already. The less stars in racing the less interest and the inevitable drop in handle. Just saying.

[dilanesp]

The Santa Anita Handicap is our version of the Jockey Club Gold Cup. Once one of the most important races in America, now destroyed by a far more lucrative competitor (Dubai in our case, the BC Classic in NYRA's case).

[airford1]

Pretty soon 5K claimers running on the turf. Visions of Caliente

[Jeff P]

Me: stepping up onto soapbox now...

I know that industry decision makers in California (owners, trainers, track management, CHRB Commissioners, etc.) don't want to hear it.

BUT --

There's no such thing as a purse fairy. (Not my phrase. But it fits here so I'll use it.)

It ought to be obvious to everybody by now that SB 1072 has been a complete disaster - and that a change in direction is needed.

In my opinion, the ONLY way thoroughbred racing in California is going to generate increases in purse money is to generate increases in money BET by horseplayers on the product.

The question isn't whether or not horseplayers were right about SB 1072 being the wrong thing to do.

The question at this point should be:

What should we be doing next?

Me: stepping down off of soapbox.


-jp

.

[GMB@BP]

Me: stepping up onto soapbox now...

I know that industry decision makers in California (owners, trainers, track management, CHRB Commissioners, etc.) don't want to hear it.

BUT --

There's no such thing as a purse fairy. (Not my phrase. But it fits here so I'll use it.)

It ought to be obvious to everybody by now that SB 1072 has been a complete disaster - and that a change in direction is needed.

In my opinion, the ONLY way thoroughbred racing in California is going to generate increases in purse money is to generate increases in money BET by horseplayers on the product.

The question isn't whether or not horseplayers were right about SB 1072 being the wrong thing to do.

The question at this point should be:

What should we be doing next?

Me: stepping down off of soapbox.


-jp

.

californians lowering taxes to spur business..i heard it all now

[airford1]

I don't think there is any way to save Horse Racing in California. The racing will crumble to what is run at Los Al at night with 2500 dollar races. I can't see anything in the future like what we had up to 2010.

[Prioress Ply]

Agree--it's dead. But it was going downhill in the early 90s, right after they started increasing the wagering menu and taking simulcast races.

It was already dead by 2005 or so you just couldn't see it. When Hubbard sold HP you knew the writing was the on the wall.

[Augenj]

They need to raise the takeout some more. That will drive purses up.
:lol::lol:

[Afleet]

where is that blowhard askinhaskin selling the virtues of increased take? I want to hear him explain what happened

[Afleet]

need to relocate Santa Anita to Tijuana to get away from all those CA regulations that are so good for business:rolleyes:

[dilanesp]

Agree--it's dead. But it was going downhill in the early 90s, right after they started increasing the wagering menu and taking simulcast races.

It was already dead by 2005 or so you just couldn't see it. When Hubbard sold HP you knew the writing was the on the wall.

This is correct. Takeout increases are at most a minor part of the story here.

[AskinHaskin]

where is that blowhard askinhaskin selling the virtues of increased take?


What drugs are you on?


I've never said a word about increasing takeout as a means to solving anything.


The point has always been that lowering takeout (instead of addressing the real concerns which lie beneath) is a fool's folly which serves only to exacerbate the problems.

My only references to raising takeout have been to underscore how obvious the idiocy that is lowering takeout really is, in the way of a solution to anything. (such as comparing Hialeah pick-4 pools with the small 12% takeout to the same pools with the much higher takeout a year later) (or comparing Canterbury's handle during the experimental year to Canterbury's handle a year later, with giant takeout increases) (those examples are emphatic, and significant at least until the failed notion that is lowering takeout ever increases the bottom line anywhere)


All you have to do is read Pratt above to further underscore how clueless the whole lower takeout campaign really is.

He should have learned via Canterbury's 2016 disaster that merely increasing "money BET by horseplayers on the product" guarantees nothing for the bottom line, or for purses at all.


Once and for all, you have to address the lack of parity in the wagering pools as the single greatest factor in racing's present demise (now ongoing for decades).

Forget takeout
forget drugs in racing
forget steward's rulings
forget some guys (but not you) being granted direct, computer-line access to the mutuels
forget horse safety* (*as an answer that relates to solving any public perception problem, and thus increasing business as a result)
forget synthetic tracks
forget last minute odds changes making a horse go from 4-1 at the post to 4-to-5 on the backstretch
forget $9000 show bets on some 74-to-1 debut runner trained by a person who is 0-for-50 lifetime with debut runners
forget race-fixing
forget competition from the lottery


All of that other s*** has just been there conveniently to camouflage what racing has been doing to itself over the past 30 years.


Use the NFL as contrast...

The mighty Dolphins, now 6 and 8, go up 27-10 over the Patriots in a game that wasn't even as close as the 27-20 final score... and the same Patriots return 6 days later and reign superior over the now-11-and-3 Steelers who had won 8 in a row.


That's why people watch the NFL!


Horse racing's standings (in the parimutuel pools) would be akin to the NHL in the 1950's where the same two teams dominated every year. (so consider the difference between total NHL attendance then and now and mark down another sport now with 8 times the attendance it had back in the good old days )


The average guy working in an office downtown has zero interest in visiting the local track or OTB because he already feels he knows what is going to happen if he does visit.


And, collectively, all of you are still the problem.


Now if you can't understand that much, then you have zero hope of ever righting this sinking ship.

[cj]

And, collectively, all of you are still the problem.


Now if you can't understand that much, then you have zero hope of ever righting this sinking ship.

We're all obviously not as smart as you are. Please, enlighten us as to how all of use are the problem. If you can't do that much I'll just have to keep deleting posts where you say it.

[lamboguy]

he's right! the more they raise the takeout, signal fees, and host fees, the less i bet into those windows. they did it in Keeneland this year and i didn't make a bet, and it looks like i wasn't the only one looking at the handle fall off the cliff while everyone else's went up.

[Afleet]

What drugs are you on?


I've never said a word about increasing takeout as a means to solving anything.


The point has always been that lowering takeout (instead of addressing the real concerns which lie beneath) is a fool's folly which serves only to exacerbate the problems.

My only references to raising takeout have been to underscore how obvious the idiocy that is lowering takeout really is, in the way of a solution to anything. (such as comparing Hialeah pick-4 pools with the small 12% takeout to the same pools with the much higher takeout a year later) (or comparing Canterbury's handle during the experimental year to Canterbury's handle a year later, with giant takeout increases) (those examples are emphatic, and significant at least until the failed notion that is lowering takeout ever increases the bottom line anywhere)


All you have to do is read Pratt above to further underscore how clueless the whole lower takeout campaign really is.

He should have learned via Canterbury's 2016 disaster that merely increasing "money BET by horseplayers on the product" guarantees nothing for the bottom line, or for purses at all.


Once and for all, you have to address the lack of parity in the wagering pools as the single greatest factor in racing's present demise (now ongoing for decades).

Forget takeout
forget drugs in racing
forget steward's rulings
forget some guys (but not you) being granted direct, computer-line access to the mutuels
forget horse safety* (*as an answer that relates to solving any public perception problem, and thus increasing business as a result)
forget synthetic tracks
forget last minute odds changes making a horse go from 4-1 at the post to 4-to-5 on the backstretch
forget $9000 show bets on some 74-to-1 debut runner trained by a person who is 0-for-50 lifetime with debut runners
forget race-fixing
forget competition from the lottery


All of that other s*** has just been there conveniently to camouflage what racing has been doing to itself over the past 30 years.


Use the NFL as contrast...

The mighty Dolphins, now 6 and 8, go up 27-10 over the Patriots in a game that wasn't even as close as the 27-20 final score... and the same Patriots return 6 days later and reign superior over the now-11-and-3 Steelers who had won 8 in a row.


That's why people watch the NFL!


Horse racing's standings (in the parimutuel pools) would be akin to the NHL in the 1950's where the same two teams dominated every year. (so consider the difference between total NHL attendance then and now and mark down another sport now with 8 times the attendance it had back in the good old days )


The average guy working in an office downtown has zero interest in visiting the local track or OTB because he already feels he knows what is going to happen if he does visit.


And, collectively, all of you are still the problem.


Now if you can't understand that much, then you have zero hope of ever righting this sinking ship.

thanks for the response. I have constantly stated the OP lowered takeout, on track, in the show pool earlier this year and wagering significantly increased in that pool, but you always bring up Canterbury as the basis of your thesis. OP is a borderline top tier track while Canterbury is a lower tier track. Why do you ignore the obvious/factual increase in handle from reduced take at OP?

Please address OP's reduced take (an actual track that has significant handle unlike Canterbury)

[Jeff P]

AskinHaskin,

You wrote:
...My only references to raising takeout have been to underscore how obvious the idiocy that is lowering takeout really is, in the way of a solution to anything. (such as comparing Hialeah pick-4 pools with the small 12% takeout to the same pools with the much higher takeout a year later) (or comparing Canterbury's handle during the experimental year to Canterbury's handle a year later, with giant takeout increases) (those examples are emphatic, and significant at least until the failed notion that is lowering takeout ever increases the bottom line anywhere)...


If, as you say, lowering takeout is idiocy, how would you explain what happened at Kentucky Downs?

HANDLE UPDATE - October 29, 2017
- Five Year Handle Trend at Kentucky Downs:
http://www.playersboycott.org/handleupdate10292017.html

Five Year Handle Trend at Kentucky Downs

For those of you who may not be aware, prior to their 2013 meet, Kentucky Downs approached HANA with the idea of lowering their exacta takeout from 19.00% to 18.25%. They asked if we would help promote the decrease in takeout by getting the word out to as many horseplayers as possible.

We thought it was a great idea and were happy to help.

So how did it work out?

Kentucky Downs has seen record handle in each of the ensuing five years 2013-2014-2015-2016-2017 and has more than tripled their handle in that time.

Keep in mind that this came about by taking the novel approach of asking a horseplayers association to help them promote a three quarter point drop in exacta takeout.


Jeff Platt


.

[airford1]

If, as you say, lowering takeout is idiocy, how would you explain what happened at Kentucky Downs?

The players love the big fields that are attracted by the large purses and the potential upsets in the win column. The opportunity to make some money as opposed to playing 9/5 favorite in every race. The takeout had little to do with the increase in handle.

Players, new and old want an opportunity to make money and with horse racing, if you go to Santa Anita and hit 3 winners on the card you are going to be in the minus column for the day. 4/5 is not making money to the new player and that's what horse racing has in too many races over most of the card.

[dilanesp]

If, as you say, lowering takeout is idiocy, how would you explain what happened at Kentucky Downs?

The players love the big fields that are attracted by the large purses and the potential upsets in the win column. The opportunity to make some money as opposed to playing 9/5 favorite in every race. The takeout had little to do with the increase in handle.

Players, new and old want an opportunity to make money and with horse racing, if you go to Santa Anita and hit 3 winners on the card you are going to be in the minus column for the day. 4/5 is not making money to the new player and that's what horse racing has in too many races over most of the card.

Which track do you think is more successful, Santa Anita or Kentucky Downs?

Look, I continue to have no idea what optimal takeout is, other than the notion that it is probably lower than current rates for everyday racing and higher than current rates on big handle races like the Derby and the Breeders' Cup. I also suspect that the price discrimination embodied in the rebate setup reflects reality-- i.e., some bettors are more price-elastic than others, so charging different takeout rates maximizes revenue.

But I am darned sure that the only way to determine optimal takeout is by carefully studying a bunch of numbers that we don't have access to, and that simplistic "see, track X lowered takeout and their field sizes increased and their handle went up" takes have nothing to do with reality. Tracks are run by people who want to make money, and if lowering takeout was a panacea more tracks would do it.

I suspect the average horseplayer would not necessarily like the world of fully optimalized takeout. For instance, there would probably be more price discrimination-- in addition to rebate shops, online bettors would be charged different amounts from simulcast bettors, who would be charged different amounts from live attendees. In addition, as I advert to above, takeout would probably be HIGHER on certain big races that people love to bet. The lowest takeouts would be on meetings that horseplayers are historically less interested in, such as east coast winter racing. You might also see lower takeouts on polytrack, if it is true that some horseplayers shy away from betting those tracks.

You could, in such a world, probably shop around very carefully and bet tracks that would save you a lot of money on takeout. But you would also have to forego betting tracks and races that you probably like to bet. To be very blunt, there's probably a significant cross-subsidy in the current takeout system where overcharging (in economic terms) on takeout of a lot of races you guys don't like to bet all that much subsidizes keeping the takeout where it is at Saratoga. (If you want to see an analogous market, take a look at the market for airline fares, where you can save a lot of money by flying flights that people don't want to fly on, but pay top dollar for the most desirable flights.)

Bottom line, I'm all for optimizing takeout. But as the proverb says, be careful what you wish for....

[ronsmac]

he's right! the more they raise the takeout, signal fees, and host fees, the less i bet into those windows. they did it in Keeneland this year and i didn't make a bet, and it looks like i wasn't the only one looking at the handle fall off the cliff while everyone else's went up.The 6th at S.A. is a great example of breakage really screwing bettors who bet short prices. The 14 paid 3.80 but would have paid 3.99 with no breakage and really 4.00 if they rounded to the closes number or 3.98 with penny breakage. That's if my calculations are correct.

[airford1]

Dilanesp, my friend I didn't say it or ask the question Jeff did. I just tried to answer the question.